OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19228/Skyfire_Mobile_Web_Browser_Review
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:57:12 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
Opera mini?http://www.osnews.com/thread?298173
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298173Is it just me, or was there absolutely no mention of Opera mini in that article?

I admit, I only skimmed it - since I don't really own a mobile device capable of browsing anyway.Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (umccullough)CommentsRE: Opera mini?http://www.osnews.com/thread?298174
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298174Is there a specific reason why he should mention Opera mini? Although I know he has tried Opera Mini. Problem is, Java on WinMob devices really sucks, it ain't as good as it is on Nokia devices, so Opera Mini has a disadvantage on these devices.Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)CommentsRE[2]: Opera mini?http://www.osnews.com/thread?298175
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298175Ah, I didn't realize that Opera mini required java... my bad.

I just thought it was interesting that the review seemed to focus on the differences between Skyfire and Internet Exporer, and then proceeds to compare it to the "iPhone browser" in how it displays a shrunk-down version of the page - with absolutely no mention of Opera Mini...

I guess I just expected to see it compared to other popular mobile browsers - but I see it's clearly targeting Windows Mobile now.Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (umccullough)CommentsRE[2]: Opera mini?http://www.osnews.com/thread?298181
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298181Oops, i didnt mean to vote you down Eugenia, was voting you up.Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (slashdev)CommentsInteresting solution...http://www.osnews.com/thread?298185
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298185I find it entertaining how much of a comparison is made with the iPhone that does it natively, though granted (at this time) the iPhone browser doesn't support every technology (Flash and Java and also other certain common types of files, like .ps) but it does it all locally, natively on the phone itself: that's where there's quite possibly a downer to what they are previewing here.

What I didn't see mentioned (perhaps I didn't look) is whether or not the service is a subscription-based one, or if you buy the software once, and you're able to use it for the lifetime of whatever dies first. What if the company goes out of business? You've got a dead phone browser, effectively! What if the server goes down? Same thing, perhaps for not as long, at least for browsing with the enhancements this provides. How slow will it get when a lot of people use it? This was just a preview of something not yet on the market in common use: you can't make very good judgments based on that, because that may not be a real-world result once everyone is online.

While this does appear to help along the value of the phone and the browsing situation, it sounds like it adds another thing to pay for, as well as another additional point or two of failure: if you can, it'd be far better to just get a phone with a browser that's not reliant on a server elsewhere, such as the iPhone, that (for the most part) does what you want in a browsing platform.Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:02:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (JonathanBThompson)CommentsVNC?http://www.osnews.com/thread?298197
http://www.osnews.com/thread?298197I think the server is just a VNC server, or some similar technology. There is no other way around flash/java. So you this is not a browser in the true sense but a VNC client, or maybe a hybrid (where only the OBJECT tags are send as a stream of images).